Mark, On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:25:24AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> An issue was discovered with tps65090 where sometimes the FETs >> wouldn't actually turn on when requested (they would report >> overcurrent). The most problematic FET was the one used for the LCD > > Please don't send new patches as replies in the middle of threads, it > makes it confusing trying to work out which versions of things should be > applied. I'm a little confused about what I did wrong. Can you give more details? * V1 had 3 patches plus a cover letter. * I was asked to split two patches, so V2 has 5 patches plus a cover letter. * My v2 series was all "in reply to" the v1 cover letter, which I thought was best practice. * All of my v2 patches were marked with v2 and included changes between v1 and v2. * Everyone was CCed on the cover letter. Only appropriate people were CCed on the individual patches (as per get_maintainer, automated by patman). * All patches were resent at v2. If I had to answer your question, I'd say that you should now completely ignore v1 and look at v2. -Doug -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |